My wonderful state: Abortion foes target use of pill

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2005-02-05 01:42pm

One of the perks of having a state legislature controlled entirely by republicans:

Newly empowered Republicans in the Georgia Legislature are setting their sights on another anti-abortion measure.

Under a bill filed Thursday by freshman Sen. Jim Whitehead (R-Evans), pharmacists who oppose abortion on "moral or religious" grounds and who refuse to dispense emergency contraceptive drugs would be immune from lawsuits or disciplinary action by employers.

Emergency contraceptives, sold in the United States under the name Plan B, can prevent a pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of having unprotected sex. The drug works as birth control pills do, by preventing ovulation, or fertilization and implantation of an egg.

But some pharmacists throughout the nation have refused to dispense the medication because they believe it amounts to abortion. Last year in Texas, an Eckerd drugstore fired a pharmacist for refusing to sell Plan B to a rape victim. Whitehead said some pharmacists in his Augusta-area district asked him to push the legislation.

"We're just trying to protect some pharmacists who feel the way we do as far as having to issue the contraceptive pill — that have Christian values that want to stand up against abortion," Whitehead said.

Pharmacists in Georgia already may refuse to fill a prescription on any grounds, said Flynn Warren, a University of Georgia professor and chairman of the Georgia Pharmacy Association's board. But pharmacists should give the prescription back to the patient and offer suggestions on how to get it filled elsewhere, Warren said.

Leola Reis, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Georgia, said the legislation would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.

"A physician has seen fit to prescribe medication that a pharmacist is refusing to make available to a woman," she said. "It's restricting access to medication that can ultimately reduce the need for abortion."

The legislation is not on the agenda of Georgia Right to Life, an influential group working with legislators to push other anti-abortion measures, including the "Woman's Right to Know" and parental notification bill approved this week by a Senate committee.

Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) is one of the bill's co-sponsors.

Whitehead and Johnson said in interviews Thursday they had concerns about the drug RU486, which causes abortion once a pregnancy is confirmed. The bill, however, does not specify that drug by name; it refers to "emergency contraceptive" drugs.

A Planned Parenthood fact sheet on the drugs notes that there is "considerable public confusion" over the difference between emergency contraception provided by Plan B and medical abortion provided by RU486. Reis said RU486 was administered by abortion providers, not pharmacists.

"The bill is not intended to prevent pharmacists from providing contraception, only from participating in an abortion," said Johnson, who acknowledged he was not clear on precisely how either drug worked.

Mary Boyert, director of the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta's pro-life office, said the church would most likely support such legislation.

"We have generally supported the ability of those who are in the medical industry — whether it be doctors, nurses or others — to have a conscience clause, so to speak," said Boyert.

Boyert said the Catholic church would consider Plan B to work as an abortion if it stopped pregnancy once the egg had been fertilized.

Karen Brauer, a Cincinnati-area pharmacist, is the president of Pharmacists for Life International, a group of anti-abortion pharmacists that claims 1,500 members. Brauer said many pharmacists who oppose abortion fear losing their job for refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions.

"It's a good idea because it really should not be a requirement that a medical professional should be involved in stopping human life," Brauer said of Whitehead's proposal.

It's nice to know that the guy sponsoring the bill doesn't even know the fucking difference between Plan B and RU-486.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-02-05 03:34pm

This is Georgia we're talking about. They banned women being able to have or get labial piercings because they didn't know the difference between that and female genital mutilation. 80% of the voters chose to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and refusing to recognize any out-of-state gay marriages. What can I say? We're surrounded by idiots.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-02-05 04:05pm

You know, the devil gets his souls from Georgia when he's way behind for a good reason. There are plenty of fucking prudes to choose from.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-02-05 04:10pm

that cashier would have a bad day if he tried that with me.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-02-05 04:35pm

For some reason, when subject heading read "My Wonderful State", Georgia immediately came to mind.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2005-02-06 10:14am

I think the Eckerd guy was fired for refusing to fill the prescription and refusing to return the prescription or forward it to another pharmacy.

He definately deserved it. The company might not have fired him for refusing to fill it but the rest of it was too much since it was about his personal beliefs and not about anything the customer had done.

I keep waiting for something like this to become a problem at our hospital. Sexual assault victims routinely get a dose of Ovral-28 in our ER. Since we stock it in our Pyxis machines pharmacy doesn't have any say in who gets it and when. Any nurse or doctor with Pyxis access can get it out and administer it to a patient.

Personal beliefs or not, considering when they have to take these "morning after" pills I think it's really stupid for someone to be considering the taking of these medications the same as getting an abortion.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of fundie morons or near fundie morons that end up as pharmacists.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-02-06 11:19am

I say, if I needed to get those pills for my GF or someone, and the cashier tried that with me, they'd get a good taste of my bad side.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2005-02-06 01:20pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I say, if I needed to get those pills for my GF or someone, and the cashier tried that with me, they'd get a good taste of my bad side.

Bah. Realistically, what could you do? Yell and threaten them?

That's what bothers me the most; if they don't want to give it to you then, there's nothing you can do. You just have to go to another pharmacy and hope the people there aren't dickheads.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-06 01:21pm

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:
Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I say, if I needed to get those pills for my GF or someone, and the cashier tried that with me, they'd get a good taste of my bad side.
Bah. Realistically, what could you do? Yell and threaten them? That's what bothers me the most; if they don't want to give it to you then, there's nothing you can do. You just have to go to another pharmacy and hope the people there aren't dickheads.

And what if there's no other pharmacy in town because you live in a dipshit podunk micro-burg? If she gets pregnant, sue the pharmacist for child support.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-02-06 01:25pm

Not only that, they've got one joker who's writing a bill to outlaw abortions, period, except in the case where the life of the mother is endangered. Not that it will make it through the courts, it's just a gesture.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-02-06 02:11pm

Something to consider.

People who work in pharmacy's that perscribe medications they have moral or religious reasons to dislike have no place to complain. Their job is to do the company policy. If they disagree with it, they can quit. You don't enforce your morals on the company itself. If I owned a pharmacy and I found I had someone refusing to percribe some of the medications for religious reasons, I would fire them in an instant. Keeping such people is bad business.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2005-02-06 02:24pm

Out of interest, in the US what legal rights does a retailer have to refuse a sale? I know that here I can refuse if I believe a product may be used in a way that may be harmful or illegal (I don't require proof of this, just a reasonable assumption), for example if I believed someone was buying alcohol or tobacco to supply to underagers. I don't imagine its much different in the US.

Whats to stop a pharmacist refusing to supply the pill because they "believe" its going to be abused?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-02-06 02:54pm

Sharp-kun wrote:Out of interest, in the US what legal rights does a retailer have to refuse a sale? I know that here I can refuse if I believe a product may be used in a way that may be harmful or illegal (I don't require proof of this, just a reasonable assumption), for example if I believed someone was buying alcohol or tobacco to supply to underagers. I don't imagine its much different in the US.

Whats to stop a pharmacist refusing to supply the pill because they "believe" its going to be abused?

Abused how exactly?

Alcohol and tobacco are a different kettle of fish being harmful, addictive, purely recreational drugs...

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2005-02-06 02:58pm

Keevan_Colton wrote: Abused how exactly?

An example would be if someone tries to buy what I would consider an unusually large amount of some medcine. Depending on the circumstances, I would refuse to sell them on the suspicion that the buyer might be trying to overdose. Another might be teenagers buying things like lighter fluid. Some might have legitmate use for it, but others might be the type you just know are going to use it for less desirable things.

Regardless of that, I think there's a law here that says I can't sell more than a certain amount of painkillers.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-02-06 03:00pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote: Abused how exactly?
An example would be if someone tries to buy what I would consider an unusually large amount of some medcine. Depending on the circumstances, I would refuse to sell them on the suspicion that the buyer might be trying to overdose. Another might be teenagers buying things like lighter fluid. Some might have legitmate use for it, but others might be the type you just know are going to use it for less desirable things.

Regardless of that, I think there's a law here that says I can't sell more than a certain amount of painkillers.

I'm still trying to figure out how you could make an argument for the abuse of birth control pills....

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-02-06 03:07pm

I'm still trying to figure out how you could make an argument for the abuse of birth control pills....

Grind them up and slip them into a town's water supply? Even then you won't do any damage expect to the rescept that your neighbors give you.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2005-02-06 03:10pm

Keevan_Colton wrote: I'm still trying to figure out how you could make an argument for the abuse of birth control pills....

I'm not. I'm just wondering if the US has laws similar to that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-02-06 03:12pm

Out of interest, in the US what legal rights does a retailer have to refuse a sale? I know that here I can refuse if I believe a product may be used in a way that may be harmful or illegal (I don't require proof of this, just a reasonable assumption), for example if I believed someone was buying alcohol or tobacco to supply to underagers. I don't imagine its much different in the US.

Well, there's the generalized anti-discrimination stuff, like race, sex, etc., but other than that I'm pretty sure a retailer can refuse to do business with a customer on whatever basis he wants.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-06 11:11pm

Creating a law which exempts employees from firing due to religious objections to doing their jobs is a pretty fucking dangerous precedent. What's to stop somebody from walking into an adult video store, getting a job, converting to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and then refusing to sell any pornography on moral grounds while still demanding that he keep his paycheque and his job?

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2005-02-06 11:26pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:I say, if I needed to get those pills for my GF or someone, and the cashier tried that with me, they'd get a good taste of my bad side.

It happened to me. It was a sunday morning, and I had a really hard time finding a pharmacy that was open. I finally found one, and they wouldnt give me birth control pills because I'm not female - they demanded to speak to her. She was at work until 5 however, I didnt have her work number, and the pharmacy closed at 3. They were arseholes, but what could I do? Get myself arrested somehow? It fucking pissed me off, believe me. I dont even want to think about, it's making me too angry.

I just dont understand what the potential problem was. How was I going to abuse birth control pills by virtue of being male?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-02-07 03:27am

what i net?

legallizing Rahypnol because the bible thumpers think women are bad....

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-02-07 03:53am

Darth Wong wrote:Creating a law which exempts employees from firing due to religious objections to doing their jobs is a pretty fucking dangerous precedent. What's to stop somebody from walking into an adult video store, getting a job, converting to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and then refusing to sell any pornography on moral grounds while still demanding that he keep his paycheque and his job?

I agree. As far as I am concerned, people who work for me will damned well sell what I tell them to sell. If they have religious reasons to dislike what I want them to sell, they can quit for all I care. If they have a problem with it, it is not the business owners place to cave in to the employees demands.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2005-02-07 10:15am

Sharp-kun wrote:Out of interest, in the US what legal rights does a retailer have to refuse a sale? I know that here I can refuse if I believe a product may be used in a way that may be harmful or illegal (I don't require proof of this, just a reasonable assumption), for example if I believed someone was buying alcohol or tobacco to supply to underagers. I don't imagine its much different in the US.

Whats to stop a pharmacist refusing to supply the pill because they "believe" its going to be abused?

I know that plenty of pharmacists refuse to fill / re-fill scripts for narcotics that either look fishy on their own , in combination with other scripts, or with the behavior of the patron trying to get the prescription filled. Usually the pharmacist will contact the person's physician to check and see what the physician really wants the patient to be on, if anything.

I haven't heard of anyone in Arizona refusing to fill or refill a birthcontrol pill perscription and certanly nobody has refused to forward it to another pharmacy. At least not that I've heard. I wouldn't be shocked if it happened though.

Around here there are big chain pharmacies on nearly every corner plus there are lots of supermarkets and WalMarts that have pharmacies in them. I think someone who starts dorking around with their personal beliefs like that will be looking for a job somewhere else. There's just too much compitition for people's business. The only thing that might save their job is the pharmacist shortage which is pretty much nationwide.

FYI, around here there are over the counter medications that have had limits placed on their sale. Because pseudoephedrine can be turned into meth it is usually kept behind the pharmacy counter and there is usually a limit on how much they will sell to one person at a time. Usually between 24 and 30 tablets.